remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Marine Fuel Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2025 In Re: 37008883 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but that he had not established that 
a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S . academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. [If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess 
a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id.] 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [ noncitizen] has a degree, 
diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, 
or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [ noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other 
renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether 
the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise 
and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the 
United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Because the EB-2 visa classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. 
employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in 
the national interest. 
We set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the 
job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner 
demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus 
of a labor certification. 
1 See Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish and operate, _______ a marine fuel management and 
bunker inspection services company. The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual 
of exceptional ability. For the reasons discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 Classification 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner does not claim eligibility for the 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, he claims to be 
eligible as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. With respect to the 
underlying EB-2 classification, the Director found that the Petitioner met at least three of the six 
categories listed above without conducting sufficient analyses. The Director also concluded that they 
have "examined the entire record" and "determined that the self-petitioner has a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." Meeting at least 
three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this classification. Where a 
petitioner meets initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material provided 
in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows the petitioner possesses 
exceptional ability. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part 
review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step 
analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence 
for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality 
of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. 
In our de novo review of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying classification, we will withdraw 
the portion of the Director's decision finding that the Petitioner has established that he is an individual 
of exceptional ability. We conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's 
decision is insufficient for review. The decision lacks meaningful analysis of the six criteria and the 
evidence and instead reaches conclusory findings. Similarly, the Director's decision lacks full and 
complete final merits analyses of the totality of the record to determine whether the Petitioner has 
established that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in his field. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
3 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, but concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
The Director, however, did not offer an analysis on the second and third prongs. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Director overlooked precedent decisions and failed to properly examine the 
entirety of evidence submitted. The Petitioner further contends that the decision "did not provide any 
reasonable explanation" to deny the second and third prongs. 
We agree. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i). A decision denying a benefit must include the specific reasons for denial and 
sufficiently explain the underlying deficiencies to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the 
decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM-P-, 
20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a 
motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Here, the Director's decision did not contain any substantive analysis of the second and third prongs, 
which prevented the Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal. 
Consequently, we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter so that the Director 
may issue a new decision that considers the Petitioner's evidence carefully. 
On remand, the Director should review and evaluate the record to determine whether the Petitioner is 
well-positioned to advance his specific proposed endeavor, and on balance, that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we are withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding the matter 
so that the Director may determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for both the 
underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and each of the three prongs of 
4 
the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to 
the new determination, and we express no opinion regarding this matter's ultimate disposition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5